EC October 2010

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

14 participants
37 discussions

Re: [EC] WIND AND NOISE
by fmoose39＠hotmail.com 06 Oct '10

06 Oct '10

I live about 6 miles from 1 and 7 from another. I can hear them, see the lights, see the smoke, smell them sometimes, and when they start the scrubbed I can feel them. Maybe wind is bad but the ones I visited are not bad at the base but with acoustics bouncing off various items who know. Bottom line all forms of power have side effects someone may not want. Even solar will have major problems when expanded to utility scale. sent from my AT&T Smartphone by HTC ----- Reply message ----- From: "James Kotcon" <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 10:42 am Subject: [EC] WIND AND NOISE To: "Esq. William V. DePaulo" <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com>, "Energy Committee" <EC(a)osenergy.org> If only a coal-fired power plant were as quiet as a wind farm. JBK >>> "William V. DePaulo, Esq." <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com> 10/6/2010 8:51 AM >>> For Those Near, the Miserable Hum of Clean Energy By TOM ZELLER Jr.<http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/z/tom_jr_zell…> Published: October 5, 2010 “In the first 10 minutes, our jaws dropped to the ground,” Mr. Lindgren said. “Nobody in the area could believe it. They were so loud.” Now, the Lindgrens, along with a dozen or so neighbors living less than a mile <http://fiwn.org/> from the $15 million wind facility here, say the industrial whoosh-and-whoop of the 123-foot blades is making life in this otherwise tranquil corner of the island unbearable. They are among a small but growing number of families and homeowners across the country who say they have learned the hard way that wind power — a clean alternative to electricity from fossil fuels — is not without emissions of its own. Lawsuits and complaints about turbine noise, vibrations and subsequent lost property value have cropped up in Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Massachusetts, among other states. In one case in DeKalb County, Ill., at least 38 families have sued to have 100 turbines removed from a wind farm there. A judge rejected a motion to dismiss the case in June. Like the Lindgrens, many of the people complaining the loudest are reluctant converts to the antiwind movement. “The quality of life that we came here for was quiet,” Mrs. Lindgren said. “You don’t live in a place where you have to take an hour-and-15-minute ferry ride to live next to an industrial park. And that’s where we are right now.” The wind industry has long been dogged by a vocal minority bearing all manner of complaints about turbines, from routine claims that they ruin the look of pastoral landscapes to more elaborate allegations that they have direct physiological impacts like rapid heart beat, nausea and blurred vision caused by the ultra-low-frequency sound and vibrations from the machines. For the most extreme claims, there is little independent backing. Last year, the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group, along with its Canadian counterpart, assembled a panel of doctors and acoustical professionals to examine the potential health impacts of wind turbine noise. In a paper published in December, the panel concluded that “there is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.” A separate study <http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-2829e.pdf>financed by the Energy Department concluded late last year that, in aggregate, property values were unaffected by nearby wind turbines. Numerous studies also suggest that not everyone will be bothered by turbine noise, and that much depends on the context into which the noise is introduced. A previously quiet setting like Vinalhaven is more likely to produce irritated neighbors than, say, a mixed-use suburban setting where ambient noise is already the norm. Of the 250 new wind farms that have come online in the United States over the last two years, about dozen or so have generated significant noise complaints, according to Jim Cummings, the founder of the Acoustic Ecology Institute <http://www.acousticecology.org/>, an online clearinghouse for information on sound-related environmental issues. In the Vinalhaven case, an audio consultant hired by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection determined last month that the 4.5-megawatt facility was, at least on one evening in mid-July when Mr. Lindgren collected sound data, in excess of the state’s nighttime sound limits. The developer of the project, Fox Island Wind <http://www.fo

2 1

WIND AND NOISE
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 06 Oct '10

06 Oct '10

For Those Near, the Miserable Hum of Clean Energy By TOM ZELLER Jr.<http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/z/tom_jr_zell…> Published: October 5, 2010 “In the first 10 minutes, our jaws dropped to the ground,” Mr. Lindgren said. “Nobody in the area could believe it. They were so loud.” Now, the Lindgrens, along with a dozen or so neighbors living less than a mile <http://fiwn.org/> from the $15 million wind facility here, say the industrial whoosh-and-whoop of the 123-foot blades is making life in this otherwise tranquil corner of the island unbearable. They are among a small but growing number of families and homeowners across the country who say they have learned the hard way that wind power — a clean alternative to electricity from fossil fuels — is not without emissions of its own. Lawsuits and complaints about turbine noise, vibrations and subsequent lost property value have cropped up in Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Massachusetts, among other states. In one case in DeKalb County, Ill., at least 38 families have sued to have 100 turbines removed from a wind farm there. A judge rejected a motion to dismiss the case in June. Like the Lindgrens, many of the people complaining the loudest are reluctant converts to the antiwind movement. “The quality of life that we came here for was quiet,” Mrs. Lindgren said. “You don’t live in a place where you have to take an hour-and-15-minute ferry ride to live next to an industrial park. And that’s where we are right now.” The wind industry has long been dogged by a vocal minority bearing all manner of complaints about turbines, from routine claims that they ruin the look of pastoral landscapes to more elaborate allegations that they have direct physiological impacts like rapid heart beat, nausea and blurred vision caused by the ultra-low-frequency sound and vibrations from the machines. For the most extreme claims, there is little independent backing. Last year, the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group, along with its Canadian counterpart, assembled a panel of doctors and acoustical professionals to examine the potential health impacts of wind turbine noise. In a paper published in December, the panel concluded that “there is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.” A separate study <http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-2829e.pdf>financed by the Energy Department concluded late last year that, in aggregate, property values were unaffected by nearby wind turbines. Numerous studies also suggest that not everyone will be bothered by turbine noise, and that much depends on the context into which the noise is introduced. A previously quiet setting like Vinalhaven is more likely to produce irritated neighbors than, say, a mixed-use suburban setting where ambient noise is already the norm. Of the 250 new wind farms that have come online in the United States over the last two years, about dozen or so have generated significant noise complaints, according to Jim Cummings, the founder of the Acoustic Ecology Institute <http://www.acousticecology.org/>, an online clearinghouse for information on sound-related environmental issues. In the Vinalhaven case, an audio consultant hired by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection determined last month that the 4.5-megawatt facility was, at least on one evening in mid-July when Mr. Lindgren collected sound data, in excess of the state’s nighttime sound limits. The developer of the project, Fox Island Wind <http://www.foxislandswind.com/>, has contested that finding, and negotiations with state regulators are continuing. In the moonlit woods behind a neighbor’s property on a recent evening, Mr. Lindgren, a retired software engineer, clenched a small flashlight between his teeth and wrestled with a tangle of cables and audio recording equipment he uses to collect sound samples for filing complaints. At times, the rustle of leaves was all that could be heard. But when the surface wind settled, a throbbing, vaguely jetlike sound cut through the nighttime air. “Right there,” Mr. Lindgren declared. “That would probably be out of compliance.” Maine, along with many other states, puts a general limit on nighttime noise at 45 decibels — roughly equivalent to the sound of a humming refrigerator. A normal conversation is in the range of 50 to 60 decibels. In almost all cases, it is not mechanical noise arising from the central gear box or nacelle of a turbine that residents react to, but rather the sound of the blades, which in modern turbines are mammoth steel appendages well over 100 feet long, as they slice through the air. Turbine noise can be controlled by reducing the rotational speed of the blades. But the turbines on Vinalhaven already operate that way after 7 p.m., and George Baker, the chief executive of Fox Island Wind — a for-profit arm of the island’s electricity co-operative — said that turning the turbines down came at an economic cost. “The more we do that, the higher goes the price of electricity on the island,” he said. A common refrain among homeowners grappling with sound issues, however, is that they were not accurately informed about the noise ahead of time. “They told us we wouldn’t hear it, or that it would be masked by the sound of the wind blowing through the trees,” said Sally Wylie, a former schoolteacher down the road from the Lindgrens. “I feel duped.” Similar conflicts are arising in Canada, Britain and other countries. An appeals court in Rennes, France, recently ordered an eight-turbine wind farm to shut down between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. so residents could get some sleep. Richard R. James, an acoustic expert hired by residents of Vinalhaven to help them quantify the noise problem, said there was a simpler solution: do not put the turbines so close to where people live. “It would seem to be time for the wind utility developers to rethink their plans for duplicating these errors and to focus on locating wind turbines in areas where there is a large buffer zone of about a mile and one-quarter between the turbines and people’s homes,” said Mr. James, the principal consultant with E-Coustic Solutions <http://www.e-coustic.com/>, based in Michigan. Vinalhaven’s wind farm enjoys support among most residents, from ardent supporters of all clean energy to those who simply say the turbines have reduced their power bills. Deckhands running the ferry sport turbine pins on their hats, and bumper stickers seen on the island declare “Spin, Baby, Spin.” “The majority of us like them,” said Jeannie Conway, who works at the island’s ferry office. But that is cold comfort for Mrs. Lindgren and her neighbors, who say their corner of the island will never be the same. “I remember the sound of silence so palpable, so merciless in its depths, that you could almost feel your heart stop in sympathy,” she said. “Now we are prisoners of sonic effluence. I grieve for the past.”

2 1

Buckle your seat belt.......
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 05 Oct '10

05 Oct '10

[image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/> ------------------------------ October 4, 2010 U.S. Military Orders Less Dependence on Fossil Fuels By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/elisabeth_rose…> With insurgents increasingly attacking the American fuel supply convoys<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/world/asia/04pstan.html>that lumber across the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/af…>, the military is pushing aggressively to develop, test and deploy renewable energy to decrease its need to transport fossil fuels. Last week, a Marine company from California arrived in the rugged outback of Helmand Province bearing novel equipment: portable solar panels that fold up into boxes; energy-conserving lights; solar tent shields that provide shade and electricity; solar chargers for computers and communications equipment. The 150 Marines<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/m/us_mari…>of Company I, Third Battalion, Fifth Marines, will be the first to take renewable technology into a battle zone, where the new equipment will replace diesel and kerosene-based fuels that would ordinarily generate power to run their encampment. Even as Congress has struggled unsuccessfully to pass an energy bill and many states have put renewable energy on hold because of the recession, the military this year has pushed rapidly forward. After a decade of waging wars in remote corners of the globe where fuel is not readily available, senior commanders have come to see overdependence on fossil fuel as a big liability, and renewable technologies — which have become more reliable and less expensive over the past few years — as providing a potential answer. These new types of renewable energy now account for only a small percentage of the power used by the armed forces, but military leaders plan to rapidly expand their use over the next decade. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the huge truck convoys that haul fuel to bases have been sitting ducks for enemy fighters — in the latest attack<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/world/asia/05pstan.html>, oil tankers carrying fuel for NATO<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/north_a…>troops in Afghanistan were set on fire in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, early Monday. In Iraq and Afghanistan, one Army study found<http://www.aepi.army.mil/docs/whatsnew/SMP_Casualty_Cost_Factors_Final1-09.…>, for every 24 fuel convoys that set out, one soldier or civilian engaged in fuel transport was killed. In the past three months, six Marines have been wounded guarding fuel runs in Afghanistan. “There are a lot of profound reasons for doing this, but for us at the core it’s practical,” said Ray Mabus, the Navy secretary<http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=505Militarybiography>and a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, who has said he wants 50 percent of the power for the Navy and Marines to come from renewable energy sources by 2020. That figure includes energy for bases as well as fuel for cars and ships. “Fossil fuel is the No. 1 thing we import to Afghanistan,” Mr. Mabus said, “and guarding that fuel is keeping the troops from doing what they were sent there to do, to fight or engage local people.” He and other experts also said that greater reliance on renewable energy improved national security, because fossil fuels often came from unstable regions and scarce supplies were a potential source of international conflict. Fossil fuel accounts for 30 to 80 percent of the load in convoys into Afghanistan, bringing costs as well as risk. While the military buys gas for just over $1 a gallon, getting that gallon to some forward operating bases costs $400. “We had a couple of tenuous supply lines across Pakistan that are costing us a heck of a lot, and they’re very dangerous,” said Gen. James T. Conway<http://www.defense.gov/bios/biographydetail.aspx?biographyid=114>, the commandant of the Marine Corps. Col. Robert Charette Jr., director of the Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Office, said he was “cautiously optimistic” that Company I’s equipment would prove reliable and durable enough for military use, and that other Marine companies would be adopting renewable technology in the coming months, although there would probably always be a need to import fuel for some purposes. While setting national energy policy requires Congressional debates, military leaders can simply order the adoption of renewable energy. And the military has the buying power to create products and markets. That, in turn, may make renewable energy more practical and affordable for everyday uses, experts say<http://www.cna.org/research/2010/powering-americas-economy-energy-innovation>. Last year, the Navy introduced its first hybrid vessel, a Wasp class amphibious assault ship called the U.S.S. Makin Island<http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/lhd8/Pages/default.aspx>, which at speeds under 10 knots runs on electricity rather than on fossil fuel, a shift resulting in greater efficiency that saved 900,000 gallons of fuel on its maiden voyage from Mississippi to San Diego, compared with a conventional ship its size, the Navy said. The Air Force will have its entire fleet certified to fly on biofuels<http://www.nytimes.com/info/biofuels/?inline=nyt-classifier>by 2011 and has already flown test flights using a 50-50 mix of plant-based biofuel and jet fuel; the Navy took its first delivery of fuel made from algae this summer. Biofuels can in theory be produced wherever the raw materials, like plants, are available, and could ultimately be made near battlefields. Concerns about the military’s dependence on fossil fuels in far-flung battlefields began in 2006 in Iraq, where Richard Zilmer, then a major general and the top American commander in western Iraq, sent an urgent cable to Washington suggesting that renewable technology could prevent loss of life. That request catalyzed new research<http://eti.c4ads.org/sites/default/files/DoD_Seeks_Alternative_Fuels.pdf>, but the pressure for immediate results magnified as the military shifted its focus to Afghanistan, a country with little available native fossil fuel and scarce electricity outside cities. Fuel destined for American troops in landlocked Afghanistan is shipped to Karachi, Pakistan, where it is loaded on convoys of 50 to 70 vehicles for transport to central bases. Smaller convoys branch out to the forward lines. The Marines’ new goal is to make the more peripheral sites sustain themselves with the kind of renewable technology carried by Company I, since solar electricity can be generated right on the battlefield. There are similar tactical advantages to using renewable fuel for planes and building hybrid ships. “Every time you cut a ship away from the need to visit an oiler — a fuel supply ship — you create an advantage,” said Mr. Mabus, noting that the Navy had pioneered previous energy transformations in the United States, from sail power to coal power in the 19th century, as well as from coal to oil and oil to nuclear power in the 20th century. The cost calculation is also favorable. The renewable technology that will power Company I costs about $50,000 to $70,000; a single diesel generator costs several thousand dollars. But when it costs hundreds of dollars to get each gallon of traditional fuel to base camps in Afghanistan, the investment is quickly defrayed. Because the military has moved into renewable energy so rapidly, much of the technology currently being used is commercially available or has been adapted for the battlefield from readily available civilian models. This spring, the military invited commercial manufacturers to demonstrate products that might be useful on the battlefield. A small number were selected for further testing. The goal was to see, for example, if cooling systems could handle the 120 degree temperatures often seen in current war zones or if embedded solar panels would make tents more visible to enemy radar. This summer, renewable technologies proved capable of powering computers, residences and most equipment for more than a week at a test base in the Mojave Desert — though not enough to operate the most sophisticated surveillance systems. Much more is in the testing stages: one experimental cooling system uses a pipe burrowed into the cool earth eight feet underground that vents into tents; a solar fan on the tent roof evacuates the hot air and draws cool air from underground. The Marines are exploring solar-powered water purification systems and looking into the possibility of building a small-scale, truck-based biofuel plant that could transform local crops — like illegal poppies — into fuel. “If the Navy comes knocking, they will build it,” Mr. Mabus said. “The price will come down and the infrastructure will be created.”

1 0

(no subject)
by Duane330＠aol.com 04 Oct '10

04 Oct '10

UPPER MONONGAHELA RIVER ASSOCIATION WV/PA MONONGAHELA AREA WATERSHEDS COMPACT Date: October 4, 2010 Governor Joe Manchin III State of West Virginia 1900 Kanawha Boulevard, E. Charleston, WV 25305 RE: Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts of Marcellus Shale Gas Development Urgent action is needed to protect the watersheds of West Virginia. A similar situation as severe exists in southwestern and northeastern Pennsylvania. Hundreds of thousands of acres in these States are in various stages of exploration and development in the Marcellus shale for natural gas extraction. The attention that this overall situation has received, or is planned to receive, by State governments is inadequate in the view of more than twenty watershed groups and conservation organizations. And, the program review in the Office of Oil and Gas as well as the Panel recently selected by WV-DEP to study the situation are not an adequate response given the magnitude of the problems at issue. The Morgantown Dominion Post newspaper was quick to see the substantive bias in affiliations of the Panel members (6 of 9 represent the gas industry under review), as described in the enclosed Editorial. There may well be some changes in State laws needed by the industry; however, the issues faced by the common citizens are extensive and severe and not appropriately represented by the panel. Nor are these issues being adequately addressed by the two State governments, given current practices or plans. The Editorial states “the fox has been put in charge of the hen house.” Watershed and conservation groups are explicitly and conspicuously absent from the Panel. The WV/PA Monongahela Area Watersheds Compact was formed on August 17, 2010, with a second meeting taking place in Morgantown on September 22nd. This new Watershed Compact includes the Upper Monongahela River Association (UMRA) and other groups that have operated for many years. UMRA has coordinated monthly meetings on these gas well drilling issues for two years with interested and affected parties including industry and government representatives. Some eight Resolutions have been approved by this Compact to date, four at each meeting. These eight Resolutions are attached to this letter for your use. We believe these represent an essential response, in part, to the current issues involving Marcellus shale development and extraction in West Virginia. We seek the implementation of remedies for the current problems in the Monongahela River watershed, the current problems in Wetzel and Marshall counties, and the projected problems on the horizon for our State and for Pennsylvania relative to natural gas exploration, development, production and transmission particularly in the Marcellus shale. We are convinced that the long-term condition of our Region is at significant risk at this time, so remedies are needed as soon as they can possibly be put into effect. We seek (1) a meeting with you, (2) a review and adjustment of the composition of the Marcellus Panel recently appointed, and (3) positions for conservation groups such as ours on the various Advisory Committees within State government that deal with the diverse aspects of water resources, water quality, sediment prevention and erosion control. Further, we request that our Compact or some of its members be represented on the new Panel and on the appropriate Advisory Committees. We also feel it is reasonable to ask for a response from your Office regarding the eight resolutions attached. Otherwise, the input and participation of the public including our diverse watershed groups and conservation organizations will not be fairly and appropriately served and citizens of our region will be further harmed and under represented. Respectfully submitted, Duane G. Nichols, Compact Co-Chair Barry G. Pallay, Compact Co-Chair and President of CLEAR and Vice President of UMRA WV/PA Monongahela Area Watersheds Compact Upper Monongahela River Association 330 Dream Catcher Circle 109 Broad Street, P. O. Box 519 Morgantown, WV 26508 Granville WV 26534-0519 cc: WV/PA Watershed Groups, US-EPA, US-ACE, USGS, WV-DEP, Gov. Rendell, PA-DEP. Attachments (2). Editorial and Resolutions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ATTACHEMENT 1 Morgantown Dominion Post, Page 10-A, Monday, September 27, 2010: EDITORIAL: “Task force far too up to its task” “Lopsided appointments of gas industry reps cause for concern about drilling” Talk about putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. And in this case, it’ s a hungry fox to boot. At least that’s the perception we got from last week’s appointment of six natural gas company representatives to a new nine-member task force to help the state better regulate the industry. We realize that this panel, appointed by the state’s director of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), will not actually be writing the regulations and legislation on how to regulate this industry. Or at least that’s what we are being led to believe. The DEP’s staff will be charged with that task, while this panel will attempt to reach a consensus on the issues. That might not be too hard to do, considering the only real differences of opinion will come from the lone representative of the West Virginia Environmental Council and an advocate for landowner’s rights. The ninth member of the panel is a coal industry lawyer, who represents the West Virginia Coal Association. No one should overestimate the scope and authority of this task force, however, we can assure the DEP and this group that we’ll be watching. Clearly, the state needs to determine how to better regulate our booming natural gas industry. We also understand the logic of considering a dual regulatory system — one for conventional gas drilling and another for the burgeoning Marcellus shale drilling. And no one is questioning why there should be industry representatives on this task force. However, the number of appointments of executives and lawyers for this industry is weighed far too heavily in the industry’s favor. With all due respect to these industry appointees, some who have served in public regulatory roles, too, these appointments raise eyebrows. Yes, they bring diverse outlooks, technical knowledge and pragmatic advice to the table, but they also bring their industry’s primary goal to the head of the well: Their profit margin. No one here is opposed to that, but regulation of this industry must balance a return on investment with reasonable regulation and oversight. Otherwise, these drilling operations may pose dangerous risks to our state’ s aquifer, our waterways, our roads, our landscape and landowners’ rights. This panel’s lopsided make-up leads us to believe there’s reason to fear all of that. We urge the DEP to review the composition of this panel and even appoint someone who isn’t a stakeholder to this task force before the chickens come home to roost. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RESOLUTIONS [ADOPTED AUGUST 17TH AND SEPTEMBER 22ND 2010] WV/PA MONONGAHELA AREA WATERSHEDS COMPACT We recognize the value of mineral extraction, including coal, oil, gas and water, in the Monongahela basin and adjoining areas, when conducted responsibly. But, the current and projected levels of Marcellus shale drilling for natural gas production and the manner in which it is being conducted poses very serious problems for most all of West Virginia and Pennsylvania. RESOLUTIONS, FIRST WV-PA WATERSHED MEETING, AUGUST 17, 2010 1. The West Virginia and Pennsylvania DEPs must enact commensurate and enforceable standards and rules/regulations and adequate penalties to protect regional water resources from potential hazards caused by mineral extraction and oil and gas drilling, including but not limited to sedimentation, water withdrawal, organic and inorganic chemicals and thermal effects. 2. The West Virginia and Pennsylvania DEPs must hire an additional and adequate number of inspectors and other staff to effectively monitor and enforce regulations governing mining and the oil and gas well industries. 3. The Upper Monongahela watershed groups advocate that closed-loop systems for containment of blowback water be required at all new construction gas well drilling sites rather than the open pit system of containment. 4. If open pits exist or are absolutely necessary, these should provide sufficient natural or geosynthetic protection to both contain the blowback water and to prevent its percolation into the soil or groundwater beneath the pit should the containment liner become ruptured. Further, we advocate the usage of regulations typically found in state dam safety statutes in order to ensure that blowback pits are properly sited and constructed, and that emergency contact/notification procedures are implemented when an accident involving the release of blowback water occurs. RESOLUTIONS, SECOND WV/PA MONONGAHELA AREA WATERSHEDS COMPACT 5.West Virginia and Pennsylvania rivers and streams frequently experience very low flows because of reduced rainfall. At these critically low flows, water withdrawals for Marcellus Shale gas well activities threaten aquatic life in many streams. And, more generally, the waters of both States must be shared among the diverse uses from agriculture to industry to recreation to domestic use. This includes both surface and sub-surface water resources. Therefore, the withdrawal of water from any source for high volume applications as Marcellus Shale drilling, fracking or other operations must be regulated and require permits from an appropriate State agency. 6. The Program Review in the Office of Oil and Gas of the WV DEP is clearly useful with a projected Final Report date of December 2010. However, this Review of oil and gas exploration and production activities in West Virginia is inadequate in and of itself. The issues and problems of this industry sector are huge and diverse and they directly involve many other agencies of State government; and, these problems are interrelated to the other extractive industries. A state-wide review is urgently needed, one that is directed from the Office of the Governor. And, a Special Session of the WV Legislature would appear to be called for to address these problems and issues that include the protection of our water, air and land as well as our roads, our scenic values and quality of life. Each extractive activity should be responsible for the cost of all the environmental and socio-economic impacts resulting from its activities, taking into account both short and long-term impacts. 7. The issues and problems affecting WV and PA as a result of the current and projected levels of activity for coal mining and natural gas production are of an inter-state or national character. Here in northern WV and southwestern PA we have many such operations that cross state lines. One major issue is the drinking water for approximately one million people in southwestern Pennsylvania that comes from the Monongahela River, which drains most of northcentral WV. This and the other streams will likely increase in their total loads of pollutants. Therefore, the US Environmental Protection Agency in conjunction with the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Geological Survey and other federal agencies should prepare a “guidance document” and respond quickly to the water and aqueous waste problems of the extractive industries now affecting New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and other States. 8. An Interagency Task Force study within the United States government is needed to examine the existing problems posed by the extractive industries in the United States. This would aim to establish a viable long range Planning Office that can anticipate many of the problems such as those posed by Marcellus Shale gas exploration and production. The focus would be on environment impacts and socio-economic dislocations such as public infrastructure damages and domestic disturbance problems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOTE: The above Resolutions were adopted by consensus at the First and Second WV-PA Watershed Group Meetings on August 17, 2010 and September 22, 2010 at the Morgantown Airport. These meetings were organized and conducted by the representatives of various watershed and conservation groups in cooperation with the Upper Monongahela River Association (_www.uppermon.org_ (http://www.uppermon.org) ). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

1 0

IMPORTANT - [MVCAC] GASLAND movie screenings: Oct 3, 11 & 12
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 04 Oct '10

04 Oct '10

Kitty, You are right, I am MVCAC's list manager, however, thanks to you I just looked at the most recent messages, so thanks! :) I am copying the WVSC on this great news. *GASLAND - Tuesday, October 12th, College of Law, WVU, off University Ave., Morgantown, WV. Time: 6:30 pm. "Green Tables" for information distribution. [Questions: justpeace(a)yahoo.com <mailto:justpeace@yahoo.com> ]* WVSC & LWV: We need to get the message out to all our members via email or phone calls, also mention it to them at Candidate Forums: http://www.lwvwv.org/category/league-of-women-votes-of-wv/candidate-forums/ WVSC: Alert via HELEN? -Jonathan On 10/1/2010 2:21 PM, Kitty Lozier wrote: > jonathan, i am guessing you know about this. how shall we work this > into our league? > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *John Lozier* <j.lozier(a)mondems.com <mailto:j.lozier@mondems.com>> > Date: Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 1:13 PM > Subject: Fwd: [MVCAC] GASLAND movie screenings: Oct 3, 11 & 12 > To: Kitty Lozier <clozier(a)gmail.com <mailto:clozier@gmail.com>>, > Catherine Tall <cvtall(a)gmail.com <mailto:cvtall@gmail.com>> > > > fyi > > Begin forwarded message: > >> *From: *"Barbara Howe" <bhowe(a)wvu.edu <mailto:bhowe@wvu.edu>> >> *Date: *October 1, 2010 11:35:26 AM EDT >> *To: *"John Lozier" <j.lozier(a)mondems.com <mailto:j.lozier@mondems.com>> >> *Subject: **Fwd: [MVCAC] GASLAND movie screenings: Oct 3, 11 & 12* >> >> Hi, John, >> Could you share this with Kitty? I don't have her email - I had >> heard the League of Women Voters was thinking about bringing GASLAND >> to Morgantown and wanted her to know that it is coming on the 12th. >> Thanks, >> Barb >> >> *From: *Duane330(a)aol.com <mailto:Duane330@aol.com> >> *Date: *September 30, 2010 7:51:43 PM EDT >> *To: *CLEAR(a)cheat.org <mailto:CLEAR@cheat.org>, mvcac(a)cheat.org >> <mailto:mvcac@cheat.org> >> *Subject: **[MVCAC] GASLAND movie screenings: Oct 3, 11 & 12* >> >> >> *_GASLAND Movie Showings: No admission charges at any of the three >> locations below._* >> *Sunday, October 3rd, Uniontown State Theater, 37 East Main Street, >> Uniontown, PA. * >> *Two showings: 1 pm and 3 pm.* >> *Monday, October 11th, Ohio County Public Library, 5 16th St, >> Wheeling, WV 26003. >> (304) 232-0244. One Showing: Noon.* >> *Tuesday, October 12th, College of Law, WVU, off University Ave., >> Morgantown, WV. Time: 6:30 pm. "Green Tables" for information >> distribution. [Questions: justpeace(a)yahoo.com >> <mailto:justpeace@yahoo.com> ]* >> *>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>* >> *For Background Information See: http://gaslandthemovie.com/* >> *>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>* >> >> GasLands-- The Documentary. 1 hour and 43 minutes. >> >> GasLand Exposes The Dangers Of Natural Gas Drilling Called Hydraulic >> Fracturing - The largest domestic natural gas drilling boom in >> history has swept across the United States. The Halliburton-developed >> drilling technology of “fracking” or hydraulic fracturing has >> unlocked a “Saudia Arabia of natural gas” just beneath us. But is >> fracking safe? When filmmaker Josh Fox is asked to lease his land for >> drilling, he embarks on a cross-country odyssey uncovering a trail of >> secrets, lies and contamination. A recently drilled nearby >> Pennsylvania town reports that residents are able to light their >> drinking water on fire. This is just one of the many absurd and >> astonishing revelations of a new country called GASLAND. Part verite >> travelogue, part expose, part mystery, part bluegrass banjo meltdown, >> part showdown. >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> NOTE: While not every detail reported in the movie is portrayed >> accurately, the issues covered and >> >> the information presented are much more than thought provoking and >> challenging. And, in my opinion, >> >> the alternative explanations that have been offered for some details >> also represent problems for our >> >> region, that is for the exploration, development, production and >> transmission of natural gas from the >> >> Marcellus shale formation. >> >> Duane G. Nichols, Co-Chair, WV/PA Monongahela Area >> Watersheds Compact. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MVCAC mailing list >> MVCAC(a)cheat.org <mailto:MVCAC@cheat.org> >> http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/mvcac >> > > Organizing for America > */WVFirstCongressionalOFA/* > http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/WVFirstCongressionalOFA > John Lozier > Monongalia County Democratic Executive Committee District 2 - > Precincts 10, 13 and 16 > 345 Virginia Avenue - phone home: 304-599-8233 cell 304 276 5141 > */ > /* > > > > > > > >

6 5

Fwd: [MVCAC] FW: National Solar Tour in Morgantown!
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 01 Oct '10

01 Oct '10

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [MVCAC] FW: National Solar Tour in Morgantown! Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 08:15:13 -0400 From: Wonderlin, William <wwonderlin(a)hsc.wvu.edu> To: mvcac(a)cheat.org <mvcac(a)cheat.org> (from Megan Nedzinski) Please see the follow message regarding an event this weekend that might be of potential interest. Hope to see you there! American Solar Energy Society (ASES) National Solar Tour nationalsolartour.org<http://nationalsolartour.org/ is coming to Morgantown! Saturday, October 2nd from 12 until 4pm. (and it's FREE!) Saturday, October 2, 2010, will be Morgantown’s second participation in the national solar tour. Any people interested can find out more information at www.morgantowngreenteam.org/iebg.html,<http://www.morgantowngreenteam.org/iebg.html,> www.eco-mod-structure.com<http://www.eco-mod-structure.com/>, or by calling John Garlow at 304-276-3655. Most locations will be open from noon until 4 pm, but look for yard signs that say OPEN HOUSE for the Solar Tour. Please help us spread the word by sharing this notice with potentially interested parties (please forward responsibly). Or by posting the attached flyer and informational brochure at your workplace, on community bulletin boards, or at other places to encourage interest and participation. A version appropriate for web posting is also attached for your use with web postings. Thanks so much and we look forward to seeing you Saturday! -- Megan M. Nedzinski, Architect, LEED AP NEDZINSKI DESIGN COLLABORATIVE, LLC collaborative | responsible | appropriate | DESIGN megannedzinski.com Sometimes you have to act as if acting will make a difference, even when you can't prove that it will. -Michael Pollan

1 0

Banks and MTR
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 01 Oct '10

01 Oct '10

Throwing Debris at the Coal Industry Mountaintop Mining Gets Heated Ken Silverstein <http://www.energybiz.com/author/blog/ken-silverstein> | Sep 27, 2010 [image: Share/Save]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.energybiz.com%2Fart….> <http://www.energybiz.com/article/10/09/throwing-debris-coal-industry##> The coal industry is the target of a lot of debris. While most of it is being tossed by environmental organizations, the rubble is now coming from the investment banking industry - those that finance the operations of coal mining companies. At issue is mountaintop mining practices in Appalachia, which sheer off the tops of hillsides to get at the underlying coal seam. Besides the scarring of the landscape, the rock and dirt that is removed ends up in the streams below and affects local water quality. So, some of the big banks have limited their involvement with the coal companies. It's all part of a greater push by the green groups to curb coal consumption in this country. The focus now is on the mountaintop mining practices in Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia - one that is supported in part by the current Environmental Protection Agency that has placed limits on the mining technique. <http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/e77fdd4f5afd88a3852576b3005a604f/4…> That movement is gaining strength now that Bank of America, Citi, Credit Suisse, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo have set formal policies that will minimize their relationships with coal operators performing mountaintop removal. "Money talks - and it is saying loud and clear that mountaintop removal coal mining is a bad investment," says Rebecca Tarbotton, executive director of the Rainforest Network<http://ran.org/content/wall-street-backs-away-mountaintop-removal-coal-mini…>. "With the move away from mountaintop removal coal mining, our country's top banks are showing that they know they can do well while doing good for our environment and our public health." The organization, which first approached Bank of America three years ago on this issue, says that banks are no longer financing Massey Energy, which is the biggest coal operator in Appalachia involved with mountaintop removal. Specifically, it says that JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo all underwrote bonds and provided loans for the company but they no longer do. But such a view may turn out to be sanctimonious and one that will cost them business as other financial institutions step in and take their business. Indeed, PNC and UBS are more than willing to bankroll such operations. While coal companies will have tighter regulatory controls, they will not disappear as too much of the national economy - not to mention local jobs in Appalachia - are dependent on their product. *Balancing Act* The coal industry, in fact, has already marched on Washington to illustrate the role it now plays and what it is doing to repair the land and water. Beyond the political steps, it is also in the process of suing to regain some earlier mountaintop mining rights that have been lost since an adverse April ruling by the EPA. At stake: Appalachia is responsible for a third of the nation's coal and two-thirds of those jobs, it says. The Energy Information Administration estimates that coal reserves in Appalachia are 55.2 billion tons while coal production tied to mountaintop mining in West Virginia alone is 52 million tons annually, which is more than the production of underground mining operations. "We plan to highlight the critically important role of the American coal miner and to call on lawmakers and administration officials to stop efforts to regulate the coal industry - and the thousands of jobs it provides - out of business," says Chris Hamilton, senior vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association. "West Virginia's congressional delegation understands the importance of coal to our local economies and national energy plan, but many federal legislators and bureaucrats do not." Hamilton points to a recent study by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's Minority Staff that highlights the economic effect of the EPA's limits on coal mining permits in Central Appalachia. According to the study, nearly 18,000 new and existing jobs and more than 80 small businesses are being jeopardized. He says that about 190 permits are still awaiting action. Mountaintop mining gained prevalence in the 1990s, largely because about 90 percent of the resources that lay beneath those peaks were available for production. After the area is mined for coal, it must be "reclaimed" and turned into something useful such as schools, shopping malls and recreational sites. It's a lot more troublesome than that, say environmentalists and other critics. Roughly 6,700 permits were issued between 1985 and 2001 and all to unload debris from the mining process to the areas below. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, about 2,000 miles of streams have been buried while at least 380,000 acres of local forestry have been devastated. "We will continue to work with all stakeholders to find a way forward that follows the science and the law," says Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator. "Getting this right is important to Americans who rely on affordable coal to power homes and businesses, as well as coal communities that count on jobs and a livable environment, both during mining and after coal companies move to other sites." Adding financial pressures to the current regulatory ones in effect will likely result in better mining practices - not an outright ban on mountaintop removal. In a country that is dependent on coal, that's acceptable. So what do you think? Please share your thoughts by posting a quick comment below, or by sending me a longer reply to energybizinsider(a)energycentral.com . EnergyBiz Insider is nominated for Best Online Column by Media Industry News follow ken at www.twitter.com/freehand1200

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC October 2010